Troops in Iraq Face Pay Cut
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable
"The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks and 120- degree-plus heat."
How can our government keep doing this to our men and women serving in the most horrendous part of the world and dying daily? How can our president look our troops in the eye and praise them for their service and then cut their pay. Outrageous is not strong enough a word.
Kind of reminds when Bush visited soldiers wounded in Afghanistan on January 17th and had the audacity to promise to 'provide the best care for anybody who's willing to put their life in harm's way' when the previous day the Department of Veteran's Affairs cut off health care access to 164,000 veterans.
Also, kinda like when Bush and Co. visited The Boys & Girls Club and said "they're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country." In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed cutting all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club.
What's next? When do the lies end double-speak end?
"The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks and 120- degree-plus heat."
How can our government keep doing this to our men and women serving in the most horrendous part of the world and dying daily? How can our president look our troops in the eye and praise them for their service and then cut their pay. Outrageous is not strong enough a word.
Kind of reminds when Bush visited soldiers wounded in Afghanistan on January 17th and had the audacity to promise to 'provide the best care for anybody who's willing to put their life in harm's way' when the previous day the Department of Veteran's Affairs cut off health care access to 164,000 veterans.
Also, kinda like when Bush and Co. visited The Boys & Girls Club and said "they're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country." In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed cutting all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club.
What's next? When do the lies end double-speak end?
Comments
link
*by having them die needlessly
Now here is an issue I would pick up if I was a democratic presidential cadidate!
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
here's a nice bit of flash with a cranberries soundtrack with some info to the plight of americans fighting in iraq.
link
Thanks for the link. Very interesting. I know I've been programmed to believe that all media is liberal biased, so shaking off those blatantly false stereotypes and wrapping my head around the truth has been eye-opening to say the least. I believe the great lie currently being pushed on us is that of the GOP echo-chambers like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, et al, who have convinced America that their news is so tainted with liberalism that they have no choice but to ratchet up their vitriol and defend the Bush administration regardless.
Back on topic - these types of lies coming out of the White House are becoming commonplace. Conservative media outlets love to cover the president when he gives one of those ?from the heart? speeches to a rally of flag waving patriots. But, they never seem to follow-up those stories with the truth. In the president?s State of the Union speech he waxed poetic about AmeriCorps and how we need mentors to love our children and new recruits for the Freedom Corps and Senior Corps. As it stands now, AmeriCorps will be slashed by 80% and the president has done nothing to persuade the House to restore funding. Since Clinton created this program, doesn?t it seem obvious that Bush would kill it?
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
here's a nice bit of flash with a cranberries soundtrack with some info to the plight of americans fighting in iraq.
link
An advertisement by http://www.takebackthemedia.com is about to be launched this week on nationally syndicated radio and shortly afterwards on television stations.
It is unbelievable that the vast budget for this misplaced Iraqi operation is prioritized towards offering huge contracts for corporations close to the administration to rebuild the destruction caused by weapons manufactured by other corporations close to this administration.
Meanwhile, the human element, namely the troops who are taking grenades and bullets in 125ºF, have been there for months with rations of MRE's, one liter of water a day, the wrong underwear, not enough desert style camouflage uniform (supplemented with dark colored jungle issue camouflage (!). Troops are being charged $6.00 for athletes foot medication, basic equipment is wearing out, parts are not being replaced on vehicles, and because the bombing targeted infrastructure such as water and power, the troops havent bathed since they were deployed back in February. Care packages are being sent by charitable organizations.....
Are Bush and co. supporting our troops?
Here is what the Administration has lined up for veterans who have put up with bad food, no water, thousands wounded, hundreds dead, with no end in sight:
*Twenty billion dollars in cuts in veterans health care over the next 13 years.
*1.5 Billion in cuts to military family housing
*Bush opposes health care for reservists.
*Bush cut 60 percent in combat pay for troops getting shot at in war zones.
After doing battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, the troops will face another huge battle when they get home.....with their bosses.
Originally posted by segovius
Bring them home - NOW
WORST
OPTION
EVAR.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Are Bush and co. supporting our troops?
Here is what the Administration has lined up for veterans who have put up with bad food, no water, thousands wounded, hundreds dead, with no end in sight:
*Twenty billion dollars in cuts in veterans health care over the next 13 years.
*1.5 Billion in cuts to military family housing
*Bush opposes health care for reservists.
*Bush cut 60 percent in combat pay for troops getting shot at in war zones.
After doing battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, the troops will face another huge battle when they get home.....with their bosses.
F*cking great post SammyJo.
See, the right wing is going to attack people like you and I for saying such fanatical un-American things. They'll probably be so predictable as to respond with something like, "how can you criticize the president for cutting the military budget when Clinton nearly bankrupted our military" or something silly and disingenuous like that.
Even though it has been thoroughly proven that Clinton did NOT bankrupt the military as evidenced by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while also maintaining our presence in Kosovo, South Korea, etc. Additionally, everyone here recognizes that we live in a completely different world now, post 9/11. The mandate has completely changed.
Add to the fact that Rumsfeld also supports reducing the size of the military to favor speed and precision, which is pretty much what Clinton was trying to accomplish. But, hey, you know us crazy liberals...we want the country to be unsafe!
My favorite 2000 GOP candidate was McCain. I felt he thoroughly brought the fact that our military men and women are terribly underpaid to the American consciousness. He railed against this by pointing out that many of our military were on FOOD STAMPS! Apparently, no one listened and we're now further compounding the problem by cutting their paychecks.
My brother is serving in Baghdad training Iraqi's to be cops. He couldn't be in a more dangerous position, both geographically and politically. Is Bush and Rumsfeld going to look him in the eye when they cut his paycheck? A paycheck, by the way, that is only 30% of what he normally makes back home (he's a reserve!). Are they going to by sympathetic when my brother tells them that his wife has already had to file bankruptcy back home? That his wife and his six-month old son have had to move back in with her mother? Are they going to understand when he explains that he?s collapsed three times from dehydration and exhaustion? Not to mention that his job on the police force may not be there when he returns (regardless of the laws that prevent them from doing that to him).
This is amazing and absolutely preposterous. I also find it interesting the right-wing fanatics that love to troll these boards are suspiciously silent. Hmmm.
Edited for spelling.
Thoth
Originally posted by Thoth2
This would be perfect for a guy like Wesley Clark.
Thoth
I would love to see him run. But, I agree with Anne Richards on this one. If he wanted to run he needed to announce his candidacy already. It takes a lot of time to get a campaign staff up and running. Kerry and The Doc have been running around Iowa and New Hampshire for a year already.
Clark could've easily coupled his Democratic ideology and his acute understanding of the military and ushered in a new Democratic century.
Personally, I'm putting my full support behind Dr. Dean (trollers, roll your eyes). He's a centrist Democrat and I believe in his message and his politics.
Originally posted by Thoth2
This would be perfect for a guy like Wesley Clark.
Thoth
Wesley Clark 2004. http://www.draftclark.com
[B]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable
"The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks and 120- degree-plus heat."
Not surprised. Bechtel, KBR/Halliburton et al have to be paid, right? Declare victory ASAP and do the rest ACAP (As Cheap As Possible). Every expense will be spared to do that.
Remember people READ AND THING. READ AND THINK. Try it someday.
Originally posted by Scott
All this blame on Bush? Is it me or is it the congress that spends the money?
Remember people READ AND THING. READ AND THINK. Try it someday.
I don't think the article or the post put "blame on Bush". But reportedly, the Pentagon recommends the cut. The Pentagon's in DoD, in the Executive Branch, headed by the President/Commander in Chief. The anklebone's connected to the legbone the legbone's connected to the kneebone, and so it goes. If the Pentagon's recommended cut in pay doesn't go through, well I'll be a blue nosed gopher.
Originally posted by fantastic happy dinner man
I don't think the article or the post put "blame on Bush".
Yea I didn't say it did. But if you read the thread here you'll see that many members do.
Originally posted by fantastic happy dinner man
But reportedly, the Pentagon recommends the cut. The Pentagon's in DoD, in the Executive Branch, headed by the President/Commander in Chief. The anklebone's connected to the legbone the legbone's connected to the kneebone, and so it goes. If the Pentagon's recommended cut in pay doesn't go through, well I'll be a blue nosed gopher.
Yea that's a bunch on nonsense. Congress approves money for specific stuff. E.g. pay, planes, 2 million rolls of TP. If they approve money for extra pay then that's that. If they vote for an extra jet then you spend it on the jet. There's no sliding money around so the pentagon wouldn't care either way.
I have read extra information on this and it's nothing more than liberal media and uninformed AI members finding something to go nuts over. Ignorance is bliss.
Originally posted by Scott
I have read extra information on this and it's nothing more than liberal media and uninformed AI members finding something to go nuts over. Ignorance is bliss.
Care to show the rest of this your extra information? It sounds to me like the Pentagon recommended the cuts and the White House, when asked about it, referred back to the Pentagon. What are we missing?
Originally posted by BRussell
Care to show the rest of this your extra information? It sounds to me like the Pentagon recommended the cuts and the White House, when asked about it, referred back to the Pentagon. What are we missing?
Really? Who and what exactly did they recommend? Doesn't congress spend the money?
I'll show you mine if you can prove yours.
Originally posted by Scott
Really? Who and what exactly did they recommend? Doesn't congress spend the money?
As you know, the administration always proposes budgets to Congress. This story says just that:
Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.
I'll show you mine if you can prove yours.
Oh come on. I'm just reading the article linked at the top of this thread.
And people wonder why this guy gets away with what he does. You dismiss him before he does something you hate, then you cry foul when he does it!
Originally posted by BuonRotto
This isn't a good thing IMO, obviously, but with regards to the whole Bush angle, I do find it entertaining that he's both an imbecile and yet a crafty machiavellian puppet master with the entire executive branch and military under his blind, authoritative control.
And people wonder why this guy gets away with what he does. You dismiss him before he does something you hate, then you cry foul when he does it!
I don't get this reasoning. If someone in the executive branch makes a willful decision, who's ultimately responsible for it? No one? Does a president really have to be a "crafty machiavellian puppet master" in order to simply be held responsible for the actions of the branch of government he is, uh, responsible for?